MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self-Serving Bias in Visitors' Perceptions of the Impacts of Tourism

2008· article· en· W2241415234 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christine M. Van Winkle, Kelly J. MacKay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Leisure Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismPerceptionPsychologyPlace attachmentEconomic impact analysisRecreationAttributionMarketingSocial psychologyAdvertisingGeographyBusinessPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores tourism destination impacts through the unique lens of visitors' perceptions of their contributions to impacts. Self-serving bias of attributions was used as the theoretical framework to examine how campers in the Canadian Rocky Mountain National Parks perceived the impacts of their own behavior on the destination. In total 241 campers completed self-administered questionnaires that assessed common tourism impacts, camping experience, and socio-demographic characteristics. Results of factor analysis indicated three dimensions of impacts: immediate; gradual; and economic. Findings suggested that while visitors recognized their immediate and economic impacts on the destination, their contribution to gradual impacts depended upon an interaction between camping experiences and destination experience. The temporal nature of impacts, coupled with the interaction effect support self-serving bias as a useful framework to explain how visitors perceive their own impacts at a vacation destination. Implications for persuasive communication are discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Leisure ResearchSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207